|
|
| Model Number |
G13009 |
| Medical Device Problem Code |
Break (1069)
|
| Health Effect - Clinical Code |
No Clinical Signs, Symptoms or Conditions (4582)
|
| Date of Event |
02/17/2025
|
|
Type of Reportable Event
|
Malfunction
|
|
Event or Problem Description
|
|
As reported, during a procedure involving treatment of an arterial occlusion in the left leg, a flexor raabe guiding sheath unraveled and separated.Contralateral access was obtained with a micropuncture kit.The access site was not scarred; however, the anatomy was calcified.The bifurcation was reportedly not steep or calcified.Another manufacturer¿s 0.035-inch wire was used during the procedure.Resistance was not encountered during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.After balloon dilation of a lesion in the superficial femoral artery, the user attempted to pull the sheath back by pulling from the hub; however, resistance was encountered, and the sheath was difficult to remove.Therefore, the physician used more force to remove the device, at which point the sheath unraveled and separated.Reportedly, the dilator was reinserted prior to attempted removal of the sheath.The separated sheath was removed ¿endovascularly¿, and an unspecified 90-centimeter sheath was used to complete the procedure below-the-knee.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this event.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
A5: ethnicity = taiwanese e1: phone number = (b)(6) h3: device evaluated by mfg = device evaluation has begun; however, a conclusion is not yet available.This report includes information known at this time.A follow-up report will be submitted should additional relevant information become available.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
| |
|
Additional Manufacturer Narrative
|
|
Summary of event: as reported, during a procedure involving treatment of an arterial occlusion in the left leg, a flexor raabe guiding sheath unraveled and separated.Contralateral access was obtained with a micropuncture kit.The access site was not scarred; however, the anatomy was calcified.The bifurcation was reportedly not steep or calcified.Another manufacturer¿s 0.035-inch wire was used during the procedure.Resistance was not encountered during insertion or removal of any device through the sheath.After balloon dilation of a lesion in the superficial femoral artery, the user attempted to pull the sheath back by pulling from the hub; however, resistance was encountered, and the sheath was difficult to remove.Therefore, the physician used more force to remove the device, at which point the sheath unraveled and separated.Reportedly, the dilator was reinserted prior to attempted removal of the sheath.The separated sheath was removed ¿endovascularly¿, and an unspecified 90-centimeter sheath was used to complete the procedure below-the-knee.A section of the device did not remain inside the patient¿s body.The patient did not require any additional procedures or experience any adverse effects due to this event.Investigation evaluation: reviews of the complaint history, device history record (dhr), instructions for use (ifu), manufacturing instructions, and quality control procedures were conducted during the investigation.A visual inspection of the returned device was also conducted.The complaint device was returned to cook for investigation.The shaft of the sheath was separated from the hub with sheath material left in the hub.The sheath was bunched up and elongated with the coils exposed for the full length of the device.A document-based investigation evaluation was performed.No related non-conformances were found, and there have been no other reported relevant complaints for this lot number.The device instructions for use (ifu) states, "avoid applying traction to the hub during removal.If resistance is anticipated or encountered during withdrawal of the flexor sheath, consider reinserting the dilator and removing the sheath and dilator as a unit.¿ a review of the device master record (dmr) concluded that sufficient inspection activities are in place to identify this failure mode prior to distribution.The information provided upon review of the dmr, dhr, ifu, and investigation of the returned device suggests that there is evidence the device was manufactured to specification.There is no evidence of non-conforming devices in-house or in the field.Based on the information provided and the results of the investigation, cook has concluded that an unintended user error contributed to the failure in this incident.The sheath hub was used to pull the device from the patient and additional force was then used to remove the device, at which point the sheath unraveled and separated.The ifu advises to "avoid applying traction to the hub during removal." the risk analysis for this failure mode was reviewed and no additional escalation was required.The appropriate personnel have been notified, and cook will continue to monitor for similar events.This report is required by the fda under 21 cfr part 803 and is based on unconfirmed information submitted by others.Neither the submission of this report nor any statement contained herein is intended to be an admission that any cook device is defective or malfunctioned, that a death or serious injury occurred, nor that any cook device caused, contributed to, or is likely to cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if a malfunction occurred.
|
| |
|
Search Alerts/Recalls
|
|
|